# Simple Grammar



## opaltiger

This is an aptly titled guide to simple grammar.  If you have any questions or suggestions or corrections, please post them in this thread.    We are happy to answer questions of any difficulty.   Thanks to surskitty, NWT and Mudkip for their help with this project.


SIMPLE GRAMMAR​ 
*PREFACE*​ 
_Grammar _is spelt with an _a_, not an _e_.   _Grammer _is wrong:   _Grammar _is right.


*PUNCTUATION*​
*THE APOSTROPHE*

The apostrophe (’) is a mark that has two completely different uses.  Do not confuse the two.

First use:  The apostrophe shows when letters have been taken out of a word.  For example, the apostrophe in the word _can’t_ shows that the letters _n_ and _o_ have been taken out of the word _cannot_.  _Can’t_ is short for _cannot_.  The apostrophe in the word _don’t_ shows that _o_ has been taken out.  _Don’t_ is short for _do not_.

Second use:  The _’s_ shows that one person owns something. For example, _Jack’s house_ means _the house that is owned by Jack_.  Always add _’s_ (not an _s_ on its own) to show ownership by one person.  _Fowler’s dictionary_ is right: _Fowlers dictionary_ is wrong.  _My friend’s house_ is right: _My friends house_ is wrong.  On the other hand, if you want to show that more than one person owns something, put the apostrophe afterward: _s’_.  _All my friends’ houses_ is right.  _My parents’ room_ is right. 

But the apostrophe never means ‘there is more than one’.  _He has two house’s_ is wrong.  _Three dog’s_ is wrong. _Tomato’s_ is wrong.  _I read a few book’s_ is wrong.  If you mean there is more than one of something, do not use an apostrophe at all: just use an _s_.   _Houses _is right.  _Dogs _is right.  _Tomatoes _is right.  _Books _is right.

(Pokémon, by the way, can be spelt Pokemon or Pokémon but never Poke'mon.)  


*THE DASH*

A dash is a long line.  Put one space before and one space after it.  

(1) He went to his friend’s house- there was no one there.  Wrong.
(2) He went to his friend’s house - there was no one there.  Better.
(3) He went to his friend’s house – there was no one there.  Best.

The difference between (2) and (3) is that the dash is longer in (3).  To make the long dash, turn on num lock on your keyboard, hold the alt key down and type 0150 on the num-lock pad.


*HOMOPHONES*​
Homophones are words which sound the same but mean different things.  Getting them confused is one of the worst betrayals of illiteracy.


*THERE, THEIR, THEY’RE*

_There _means a place of some kind.   So _go over there _means _go over to that place_.  (_There _also starts sentences which have no other way of starting, such as _There was a problem_.)

_Their _means _owned by them_, just as _his _means _owned by him_.  _Their house_ means _The house that is owned by them_. 

_They're _is created by the first-use apostrophe.  In the word _they’re_, letters have been taken out.  _They’re_ is short for _they are_, because the apostrophe has taken out the letter _a_.  So _they’re stupid_ means _they are stupid_.

_They’re going there to see their house_ is correct.  It means [_They are_][_going to that place_]_to see_[_the house that is owned by them_].


*WHERE, WEAR, WERE*

_Where _and _were _are completely different.  _Where _rhymes with _fair_.  _Were _rhymes with _fur_.  

_Where _means a place.  So _Where are you going? _means _What place are you going to?  _​ 
_Were _means _was, _but _were _is used when there is more than one of something.  _He was sad_ is right.  _They were sad_ is right. 

_Wear _is to do with clothes.  As in, _wear something nice_.

_They were going to wear nice clothes_ is right.   _Where are you going to get nice clothes?_ is right.  But _Were are you going to get nice clothes?_ is wrong.


*ITS AND IT’S*

_Its _is like _my _and _his_.  _Its _means _owned by it_ or _to do with it_. So _the keyboard is missing some of its buttons_ is right.  _The dog was brought to its checkup_ is right.  _My pet broke its leg_ is right.

_It’s_ is created by the first use of the apostrophe.  The apostrophe cuts out the letter _i_.  _It’s_ is short for _it is_.  _It’s very important_ is right: meaning _It is very important_.

_It’s sleeping because of its broken leg_ is right.  


*YOU’RE AND YOUR*

_Your _is like _my_, _his_, _her_, _its_.  _Your _means _owned by you_.  _Is that your house?_ is right because it means _Is that the house that is owned by you?_  But _your sad_ is wrong.

_You’re_ is created by the first-use apostrophe.  In the word _you’re_, the apostrophe takes out the letter _a_.  _You’re_ is short for _you are_.  _You’re sad_ is right because it means _You are sad_.

_You’re smaller than your house_ is right.  It means _You are smaller than the house that is owned by you_.  


*WHETHER AND WEATHER*

_Weather _is rain, sunshine, clouds, snow and thunder.

_Whether _is to do with two possibilities.  
_
Find out whether the weather is good._


*TOO, TWO, TO*

Firstly, _too_ is used when you mean _not the right amount_.  _The porridge was too cold_ is right.  _There were too many people_ is right.  _It was too expensive_ is right.  Secondly, _too_ can mean _also_.  _I want to go, too!_ is right.

_Two _is a number.  One, _two_, three, four, five.  _There were two doors._

_To _is used for everything else.  _He went to the shops_ is right.  _I like to write_ is right.  

_He wanted to buy two books, but they were too expensive._


*MISCELLANY*​
*DIALOGUE*

Dialogue is characters’ speaking.  It seems most useful to write the rules of dialogue straight off.  

(1) Every quotation begins with a capital letter.

He said, “stand up.” (Wrong)
He said, “Stand up.” (Right)

(2) When one quotation is cut into parts by _he said_, _she replied_, etc., only the first part begins with a capital.  The other parts begin with a lower-case letter.

“Stand up,” he said, “And get your things.” (Wrong)
“Stand up,” he said, “and get your things.” (Right)

(3) The punctuation at the end of each quotation is inside the quotation marks.

 “Stand up”, he said, “and get your things”.  (Wrong in two places)

(4) A period (a full stop) is never put straight before _he said_, _she replied_, etc.   You may use exclamation marks, question marks, and commas, but not periods. 

“Be quiet.”  She said.  (Wrong)
“Be quiet.” she said. (Wrong)
“Be quiet,” she said.  (Right)

(5) _He said_, _she said_, etc., do not begin with a capital letter when they come after an exclamation mark, question mark, or comma.

“Be quiet!” She said.  (Wrong)
“Be quiet!” she said. (Right)

(6) If _he said_ (etc.) is not at the end of a sentence, add a comma to the end of _he said_.

“Jo,” he said “what’s wrong?” (Wrong)
“Jo,” he said, “what’s wrong?” (Right)
“Nothing,” she replied “really.” (Wrong)
“Nothing,” she replied, “really.” (Right)

(7) A new paragraph  is created whenever a different person begins speaking. 

“Hello,” said Smith.  “Who are you?” Jones replied.  (Wrong.  A new paragraph should be created just before Jones says _“Who are you?”_)

The best way to remember the rules of dialogue is to read characters’ conversations in books.


*SHOULD OF, WOULD OF, COULD OF*

_Should of_ is wrong. _ Would of_ is wrong.  _Could of_ is wrong.  They are all wrong.  Always write _should have_, _would have_ and _could have_.  For example, _I should of helped_ is wrong: _I should have helped_ is right.  


*FEWER AND LESS*

Use _fewer _when you are talking about something that you can count.  Use _less _when you are talking about something that you can not count.  

_Fewer houses_ is right.  You can count houses.  _Less water_ is right. You can not count water. _Less people_ is wrong because you can count people.  _Fewer people_ is right.


*NO ONE AND NOONE*

Do not write _Noone was in_.  Do not write _I have noone to talk to_.  They are two words: _no one_.  Write _no one was in_ and _I have no one to talk to_.


*A LOT AND ALOT*

_Alot _ is not a word.   Always write it with a space in the middle: _a lot_.  


*THEN AND THAN*

_Than_ is used when you are comparing two things.  _I am taller than you_ is right.  _I’d rather walk than run_ is right.

_Then_ is used when you are talking about time: it usually means _after that_. _ Buy the present, then go to the party._ _Then _can also be used in _if_ sentences: _If you try, then you’ll succeed._ 

So, _Faster then lightning_ is wrong.  _There is no writer better then Paolini_ is wrong, especially._  Since than, things have changed_ is wrong.  


*NUMBERS*

Write numbers out in words, except numbers that are greater than one hundred.  _I saw 2 people_ is wrong: _I saw two people_ is right.  But it is not wrong to write _274 days passed_.


----------



## Retsu

Lovely thread. =) Thanks for taking the time to write this out, both of you.


----------



## OrangeAipom

It'll be so much easier to quote this than make it up on the spot. :)


----------



## Kratos Aurion

Good to see this back. Although if I can make a little nitpicky suggestion, the section on dashes is wrong. You're using an en dash there in the "best" example, when technically it should be an em dash with no spaces between it and the words. It's a little thing, but hey, if you're going to tell them to do it right you might as well go all the way. ;)

And since you're covering "no one" and "noone", why not add "a lot" and "alot"?


----------



## Negrek

Nice and simple. I like it.

I don't know if it's too advanced for this guide, but the difference between "lay" and "lie" is something that people screw up all the time and that bugs me to no end. (Primary reason I can't listen to "Chasing Cars" too often.)


----------



## Icalasari

Thank you!

I often forget some of those rules ^^;

And a lot never looked natural to me if it ends a sentence...


----------



## Ruby

Near the end of writing this I got restless and skipped a few things which I shouldn't have, but I do certainly mean to come back and write more.  When I do, I'll probably use your ideas.  Except, Kratos, whether to use the en dash or the em dash is a moot point: there is definitely not the consensus you think there is.  As far as I'm concerned, the em dash is no more nor less proper than the en dash, even though the em dash is more common in American English.  I imagine you've had this idea of em dash supremacy drummed into you by devout teachers of American English.


----------



## Kratos Aurion

Not teachers, no. It's something I actually looked up on my own because I was curious. I suppose it doesn't really matter, but it is what I saw everywhere I looked.


----------



## Ruby

Haha, well, I suppose it's too much to expect of teachers that _they _ should actually teach.  So where did you look it up?


----------



## Kratos Aurion

Oh, I don't really remember now. Whatever reputable-looking websites came up after googling something like "en dash em dash hyphen" and some style books around the house, I guess.

But no, we never covered proper use of dashes in school, aside from one teacher who gave me an off-hand "Oh, these dashes are wrong, but other than that..." when he was reading over an essay for some contest.


----------



## Ruby

It seems to be a slightly blurred American English–British English distinction.


----------



## Retsu

opaltiger, you should write something like this for German, as my grade is starting to reflect my knowledge of German grammar pretty accurately. :(


----------



## opaltiger

There is absolutely nothing simple about German grammar.

If you like, I can write up the fairly standard tables, but it requires a certain amount of memorisation.


----------



## Retsu

I would like it, but it's nothing I can't research myself if you're not specifically in the mood to do such a thing. XD


----------



## Icalasari

Then and Than. Those almost ALWAYS screw me up for a while before I figure it out, and even then, I sometimes mix them up...


----------



## Ruby

Doesn't the pronunciation in your mind of "then" and "than" tell you which one to use?


----------



## Kratos Aurion

His pronunciation might not be as distinct, though. I know I have a hard time hearing it in my own voice unless I make an effort to differentiate them.


----------



## Ruby

I've added two short parts called 'A lot and Alot' and 'Then and Than'.


----------



## Dannichu

Ooh, I like. Well done on these :3

If I may, I find these guides on pronoun/antecedent agreement, who vs whom and personal pronouns (when to use "me" and "I") extremely useful. 

Here's Negrek's lie/lay, too~

This site is also pretty interesting.


----------



## Lucas₇₅₅

Yes, definitely add who vs. whom.
And you missed a use of apostrophes: Putting a quote in dialogue, or vice versa.

"Joe told me to 'Go tudduh store' and get milk," said the girl.


----------



## Eevee

opaltiger said:


> (3) The punctuation at the end of each quotation is inside the quotation marks.


Oh Reginald~

*I disagree!*


I've always thought this is a terrible rule.  It's also an American invention; as I understand it, the original British rule (and a newer American rule, naturally) is logical quotation: when the punctuation at the end of a quote occurs at the end of the containing sentence, only put it on the inside if it matches.  Otherwise you end up with nonsense like this: _Did he tell me "turn the oven off?"_

It also makes more sense when quoting short phrases or parts of sentences, since you don't end up sticking end-of-sentence punctuation where it doesn't belong: _He called evolution "just a theory"._

Wikipedia's manual of style agrees  B)


----------



## Ruby

I've always thought that the British rule makes more sense as well.  I'm sure opal remembers that I talked at him for hours about this and apostrophes and everything else while the guide was in the making.  But in the end, we chose to leave out details.  I admit we were loose with the word "details": we've cut out more or less everything complicated.  The British rule _is_ complicated, whereas the reader can understand and follow the normal American rule without trouble.

One day I'll write Not So Simple Grammar, in which I'll compare the different rules.  I might even write Harrowing Grammar, in which I'll talk about Fowler's rules for the dash and the difference between shall and will.  But for now, foolproof Simple Grammar will do.


----------



## Eevee

Harrowing.

I don't think that scrapping common sense in the name of skin-deep simplicity is necessarily a good idea, but ok.


----------



## Ruby

Why did you say harrowing?

And it's not a matter of common sense - language makes no sense - it's a matter of usage.  Can he get away with using the American usage?  Yes.  Can he get away with misusing the British usage?  No.


----------



## Eevee

It's a cool word!

Languages CAN make sense in small ways.  It makes more sense to preserve the end punctuation of a sentence when possible than to toss it for something else and hope the reader figures it out.


----------



## Ruby

That's why I use the British system.  The problem is that John_Smith123 will read our guide and go away to write his magnum opus, and it will begin

Oak said, "I overslept"!


----------



## Ruby

Humorous ambiguity with the compound possessive.





Retsu said:


> I kinda like the chick in the wheelchair's socks though.


----------



## Retsu

Eh?


----------



## nyuu

"chick in the wheelchair's socks" could be read as "the chick in the socks owned by the wheelchair"


----------



## Music Dragon

Well, what else are you supposed to do? "The chick's in the wheelchair socks"?


----------



## cillian_murphy_fangirl

Thank you for posting this.
There are lots of people on the internet that could use some help with their grammar.
Every forum should have a board like this, really.
xD


----------



## Kratos Aurion

Music Dragon said:


> Well, what else are you supposed to do? "The chick's in the wheelchair socks"?


Reword it. "The socks that belong to the chick in the wheelchair", "the socks on the chick in the wheelchair", or just change it up entirely.


----------



## OrangeAipom

"The chick-in-the-wheelchair's socks"?


----------



## ultraviolet

Ironically, there's a typo; you've missed out the first 't' in 'punctuation'.

Unless this is a spelling I haven't seen before. :| But yeah, this is useful.


----------



## shadow_lugia

Maybe you should add a bit about 'wether' in the whether/weather section. I learned a few months ago that my parents have been spelling it wrong for over thirty years. Just for reference, if you do put it up, 'wether' means 'a gelded male sheep.'

And maybe a bit on hyphenated (spelling?) numbers; you're only supposed to have hyphens in between numbers in the tens and the ones, such as sixty-seven or thirty-two. So the correct spelling would be one hundred fifty-four. Oh yeah, and there's no 'and' in between any parts of a spelled-out number.

Perhaps there should be a whole section on hyphens in general? For instance, I'm pretty sure some people need reminding about hyphenated adjectives, such as 'spelled-out' in the previous paragraph.

And finally, adding to the numbers, you should never begin a sentence with a numeral. An example:

_2 people stayed behind._ is wrong

You have to write it out as _Two people stayed behind._

...I feel scared of all these mods D:


----------



## Zeph

shadow_lugia said:


> Oh yeah, and there's no 'and' in between any parts of a spelled-out number.


Actually there most definitely is in British English. Not in American English, I know, but there is in British.


----------



## opaltiger

shadow_lugia said:


> Maybe you should add a bit about 'wether' in the whether/weather section. I learned a few months ago that my parents have been spelling it wrong for over thirty years. Just for reference, if you do put it up, 'wether' means 'a gelded male sheep.'


If you can think of a conceivable situation in which a regular person would feel the need to use the word "wether", sure. Otherwise I don't see the point. Keeping it simple, yeah?



> And maybe a bit on hyphenated (spelling?) numbers; you're only supposed to have hyphens in between numbers in the tens and the ones, such as sixty-seven or thirty-two. So the correct spelling would be one hundred fifty-four.


This isn't grammar, and do people _really_ get it wrong?



> Oh yeah, and there's no 'and' in between any parts of a spelled-out number.


>:(



> Perhaps there should be a whole section on hyphens in general? For instance, I'm pretty sure some people need reminding about hyphenated adjectives, such as 'spelled-out' in the previous paragraph.


I don't think this is a particularly pressing concern.



> And finally, adding to the numbers, you should never begin a sentence with a numeral. An example:
> 
> _2 people stayed behind._ is wrong
> 
> You have to write it out as _Two people stayed behind._


You should never use numerals for numbers under a hundred in writing, period. Still not grammar, though.



> Ironically, there's a typo; you've missed out the first 't' in 'punctuation'.


Spelling is not grammar. >:( There is nothing ironic about it.


----------



## CNiall

Zephyrous Castform said:


> Actually there most definitely is in British English. Not in American English, I know, but there is in British.


This may just be a result of only hearing the American English variant rarely, but 'two thousand nine', 'one hundred one' and so on sounds pretty ridiculous to me. :(


----------



## opaltiger

I know this was months ago, but I only just remembered I had been meaning to address this:



Eevee said:


> Oh Reginald~
> 
> *I disagree!*
> 
> 
> I've always thought this is a terrible rule.  It's also an American invention; as I understand it, the original British rule (and a newer American rule, naturally) is logical quotation: when the punctuation at the end of a quote occurs at the end of the containing sentence, only put it on the inside if it matches.  Otherwise you end up with nonsense like this: _Did he tell me "turn the oven off?"_
> 
> It also makes more sense when quoting short phrases or parts of sentences, since you don't end up sticking end-of-sentence punctuation where it doesn't belong: _He called evolution "just a theory"._
> 
> Wikipedia's manual of style agrees  B)


The relevant section deals specifically with dialogue, which is all too often the subject of silly mistakes. I agree that in other cases (like direct quotations) the punctuation mark can and should, depending on the context, be placed after the closing quotation mark.

The matter is also debatable when it comes to dialogue (Ruby was sure to provide me with an abundance of contrived examples demonstrating this point), but I think it is practical, given the nature of this guide, to state this rule, since in the majority of cases it does not lead to any ambiguity.


----------



## Zeph

CNiall said:


> This may just be a result of only hearing the American English variant rarely, but 'two thousand nine', 'one hundred one' and so on sounds pretty ridiculous to me. :(


I have to agree.


----------



## OrangeAipom

I thought there was an and in a number that has some sort of decimal, such as "nine and four tenths".


----------



## Ruby

At the end of Miscellany I've put a very short bit about numerals.  I'm thankful for the other suggestions even though I haven't used them.  We want to write about the basics, not the trimmings, and I'm afraid I think hyphens are a trimming.  

I say 'one hundred and one', but neither way is worth condemning, or talking about.


----------



## nothing to see here

This is more about spelling than grammar, but I suppose it would make sense to have it in here anyway, since this _is_ a Pokémon board.  Plus there's already a "where you use apostrophes" section, so...

Pokémon is spelled "Pokémon" with an é, not "Poke'mon" with a random apostrophe stuck in there after the e.  "Pokemon" is okay if you can't type an é or don't know how, though, since _anything_ is better than sticking an apostrophe in the middle of the word where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Ruby

Thanks.  I added it at the bottom of the section about apostrophes.


----------



## Mirry

In the section about "to, too and two", it is stated that "too" is used only in cases such as "the water was too hot". This is incorrect, however -- "too" can also mean "also". As in, "I am coming, too!".


----------



## Lorem Ipsum

I'm not sure if this is too advanced, but the differences between nouns and verbs in words like 'practice' or 'advise' might be useful to add.

Also, Americanised numbers sound all awkward. 'Two thousand and nine' sounds better than 'two thousand nine'. It just sounds lazy and unrefined.


----------



## Ruby

I've used Mirry's idea.  Lorem Ipsum, I think if we wrote about that kind of word we'd come up against too much trouble. The difference between licence and license exists in British English but rarely in American English, and there are more examples like that.  We'd end up having to write about -ize and -ise words, too.  Really, it would be too complicated.  Thank you, though.


----------



## SonicNintendo

By the way, I can't use the long, "proper" dash because I don't have a keypad and i'm not sure the mac allows it.  As for the accents, I'll just find a complete translation of any Italian verb and copypaste all the accents (the e, the i, the o, and the a).

Just in case anybody was wondering.


----------



## Superbird

^Proper dash, as in "—" instead of "-"? That's easy: alt+shift+-.


----------



## Squornshellous Beta

And control+alt+letter for an acute, like control-alt-e for é.


----------



## Superbird

More accurately, alt+e+ (whatever letter you want the accent for). ó, í, ú, á, and all the capitals are available as well, along with ü ï ö ë ä (alt+u), and î ô â ê û (alt+i).

Oh, and ctrl+shift+k yields this: 


----------



## Squornshellous Beta

I'm on a PC, so I guess the shortcuts are diferent. =/


----------



## Pwnemon

Oh my gosh if everyone read this my life would be complete.


----------



## Superbird

Yeah, I'm on a mac, so...

There's also all the Roman letters, and other things: ¥ ¢ £(as opposd to $) ™ ∞ § ¶ •  ≠ « ∏ ø † ∑ ® œ å ß ∂ ƒ © ˙ ∆ ˚ ¬ … æ Ω ≈ ç √ ∫ ñ õ µ ≤ ≥ ÷

...And I'm not even going to start on alt+shift...


----------



## Zuu

Roman letters? do you mean the Greek alphabet?


----------



## Superbird

Yes, I meant Greek. See how much I know!


----------



## Ruby

Macs don't have the Roman alphabet.  That's how bad they are.


----------



## Pwnemon

That is true. Whenever you see someone talk |13k D15, just think, "Poor them, they must have a Mac."


----------



## SonicNintendo

Superbird said:


> Yeah, I'm on a mac, so...
> 
> There's also all the Roman letters, and other things: ¥ ¢ £(as opposd to $) ™ ∞ § ¶ •  ≠ « ∏ ø † ∑ ® œ å ß ∂ ƒ © ˙ ∆ ˚ ¬ … æ Ω ≈ ç √ ∫ ñ õ µ ≤ ≥ ÷
> 
> ...And I'm not even going to start on alt+shift...


I love you now (not like that).  What if you want the accents the other way (as in for italian)?


----------



## Superbird

à è ì ò ù (alt+` or ~)

or 

á é í ó ú (alt+e)


----------



## Autumn

Ruby said:


> Macs don't have the Roman alphabet.  That's how bad they are.


! |<|\|0\/\/ |2!6|-|7? | /\/\34|\|, 7|-|3 14(|< 0|= 4 |20/\/\4|\| 41|0|-|4837 0|\| 7|-|!5 |<3`/804|2|) |23411`/ |0!5535 /\/\3 0|=|= 50/\/\37!/\/\35...

(in case you couldn't tell, I have a Mac)

(also, I thoroughly apologize for any brains that have imploded by my gratuitous use of leet-speak.)


----------



## Superbird

In english, please...?

I'm not gonna waste thirty minutes of my life to translate that.


----------



## Autumn

fair enough

"I know right? I mean, the lack of a Roman alphabet on this keyboard really pisses me off sometimes..."


----------



## Pwnemon

How long did that take you to write?


----------



## Autumn

not as long as you'd think really


----------



## Ruby

She just used Google Translate.


----------



## Autumn

actually, no, I didn't. o.o I've known the 1337 alphabet for a long time.


----------



## Green

Wait, does Google Translate actually do leet speak?


----------



## Pwnemon

No. There are leet speak translators but not to that disturbing extent, at least as far as I know.


----------



## Ruby

I thought it was Welsh. :/

Edit: OK, sorry, bored at 4am.  My posts in this thread have declined slightly in quality since I co-wrote the OP.


----------



## yiran

To get the longer dash in Mac OSX, hold Option (Alt) and press the shorter dash.

Eh, didn't read the whole topic, but thought that might be helpful to other Mac users. Add it in, please?


----------



## Karousever

Also, can we teach people what literally means? It's disturbing how often I hear a girl say, "I literally died!" 

Or a guy say, "I literally crapped myself!"


----------



## ultraviolet

jaketiger1116 said:


> Also, can we teach people what literally means? It's disturbing how often I hear a girl say, "I literally died!"
> 
> Or a guy say, "I literally crapped myself!"


well they're technically not using it incorrectly; they're exaggerating and you know they're exaggerating, thus there's no ambiguity. you wouldn't get mad at someone saying 'the fish was as big as my car!!' or 'I was _this close_ to punching the guy' would you?


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

*Affect* - To influence a situation
*Effect* - The result of a cause

This is another mistake I see all too often.


----------



## Karousever

Oh yeah, Affect and Effect, when people screw those two up it gets on my nerves...normally what I see is the lack of affect used at all, and people just _always_ using effect.


----------



## Zero Moment

One of the things that bug me the most is *loose* and *lose*. One is to set something free or to have something not firmly fixed in place, and the other is ceasing to have something.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

ultraviolet said:


> well they're technically not using it incorrectly; they're exaggerating and you know they're exaggerating, thus there's no ambiguity. you wouldn't get mad at someone saying 'the fish was as big as my car!!' or 'I was _this close_ to punching the guy' would you?


People often don't mean to exaggerate what they're saying in that way when they (mis)use 'literally'. One could, yes, use literally to mean 'really' if one was aware of the actual definition, but most of the time people saying 'I was literally going to kill him' aren't quite that informed, in my experience. They're not _technically_ incorrect, but they  often don't know why or even that they were close in the first place.


----------



## ultraviolet

Blastoise Fortooate said:


> People often don't mean to exaggerate what they're saying in that way when they (mis)use 'literally'. One could, yes, use literally to mean 'really' if one was aware of the actual definition, but most of the time people saying 'I was literally going to kill him' aren't quite that informed, in my experience. They're not _technically_ incorrect, but they  often don't know why or even that they were close in the first place.


Honestly? If someone's saying 'I was literally going to kill him' and you know better that they _weren't_ going to actually kill him, they're exaggerating. That's what exaggeration is. "[I was so angry/frustrated/upset/whatever that] I was literally going to kill him" is exaggerating; it's exaggerating how angry or whatever they are. I think people do actually mean to exaggerate when they say things like 'literally', because if you say "What? You were going to kill him?!" they'll say something like "well no okay I wasn't _actually_ going to kill him but I was so angry with him etc". Nobody is actually going to get killed here. You know that and they know that, so what's the problem?

It's a figurative expression, anyway; saying "I was literally going to kill him!" is a figure of speech, it's symbolic of how angry/whatever they were, and it's an exaggeration. Nobody is actually under the impression that someone's going to get killed here. They're not _misusing _'literally', or if they are, they're misusing language the same way as when people say "It moved as fast as greased lightning!" or "This is the most glorious thing I have ever seen in my entire life". None of these things are actually true, and none of these words are actually being misused in this context. Everything makes sense and it's non-ambiguous, so what's the problem?

I think it's more that 'literally' is frequently used by teenagers all the time and people are just sick of hearing it, so they're getting all grammarian so they can make these people feel stupid and stop saying it, which is actually the worst.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

My point is that people who say 'literally' a lot often do not know its actual meaning. Of course they're exaggerating, but they don't know the meaning of the word that they're using to do it. They substitute 'very' or 'really' with 'literally' without understanding the actual meaning of the word. I'm not (trying to) imply that these people aren't joking, but that they don't know the word that they're using.

It's not really a big deal, honestly, but then much of grammar isn't.


----------



## Music Dragon

Reading this conversation sure effects a change in affect!


----------



## Superbird

I swear, I am figuratively about to explode from all this nonsense.

It just doesn't have the same ring to it, though!


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

Birdy said:


> I swear, I am figuratively about to explode from all this nonsense.
> 
> It just doesn't have the same ring to it, though!


It might not be as effective, but at least you sound like someone who knows the meaning of the words you are using.


----------



## Music Dragon

Actually, whether one uses "figuratively" or "literally" has nothing to do with grammar.


----------



## Minish

Yeah uh nothing is more hilarious than people getting huffy about 'bad grammar' when it's. not. And nothing is more tiresome than people getting huffy about 'literally' because it just feels like they've been told they should feel huffy! If people consistently use 'literally' in this way, _that is a meaning_. Eventually dictionaries will comply, eventually it won't even be just 'colloquial'. Sorry.


No, no, the most hilarious is when punctuation is suddenly grammar. It's actually orthography! And it's not built into the way we structure language at all. I will forgive this guide because 2008.


----------



## ultraviolet

Blastoise Fortooate said:


> My point is that people who say 'literally' a lot often do not know its actual meaning. Of course they're exaggerating, but they don't know the meaning of the word that they're using to do it. They substitute 'very' or 'really' with 'literally' without understanding the actual meaning of the word. I'm not (trying to) imply that these people aren't joking, but that they don't know the word that they're using.
> 
> It's not really a big deal, honestly, but then much of grammar isn't.


but literally isn't being used as a synonym for 'very' in this context anyway. I think a lot of people do know what 'literally' means, because a lot of the time if you prod them about it they'll switch to 'actually' or something. Why would someone choose to say 'literally' without knowing what it means? I mean sure, people actually misuse words all the time, but that's true of lots and lots of words, not just literally.

also yes lol grammar is very silly; I had to take several classes last year on grammar while I was still doing an editing minor and let me tell you my life has not been enriched by knowing what a co-ordinating conjunction is.



			
				Vehement Mustelid said:
			
		

> It might not be as effective, but at least you sound like someone who knows the meaning of the words you are using.


no, saying you're going to figuratively explode will make you look asinine because it doesn't make sense and misuses 'figuratively'.
Saying 'I am literally going to explode' _is a correct usage of 'literally'_. Saying you're figuratively going to explode *makes no sense* because you can't 'figuratively explode'. the entire point of saying that you're literally going to do something impossible is that you're exaggerating for effect; 'figuratively exploding' is absolute nonsense and nobody will understand what you're talking about.


----------



## ParsnipTheRaichu

Misusing the word literally is literally no big deal. I have never herd it used correctly. If you want something to be literal, you don't need to say literally most of the time. The word literally is used mainly as an exaggeration.

"He was about to kill someone." vs. "He literally was about to kill someone."


----------



## Butterfree

This is actually a really old discussion; the last post in it was in 2012. You're allowed to post in it and all, but the conversation you're responding to is long over.

But yes, using 'literally' in the colloquial sense is exactly the same kind of exaggeration as "I've told you five hundred times!" No one would argue that if somebody says that they don't know what the number five hundred means. The main reason people resist the use of 'literally' for exaggeration, though, is just that its literal meaning is something you can use _specifically to indicate that you're not being hyperbolic or figurative_, and when it's used for exaggeration, it makes it harder to convey that meaning when you actually need it. Usually it's pretty clear from the context anyway, but I can appreciate why one would lament the loss of clarity.

People saying you should use 'figuratively' _instead of_ 'literally' are being ridiculous, precisely because the whole point of using 'literally' is hyperbole, and 'figuratively' does the exact opposite. If you're not allowed to use 'literally' for the purposes of exaggeration, then you're going to leave it out altogether, or use other hyperbolic constructions, not switch to something that _downplays_ the statement.


----------



## Stryke

Under homophones, it would be a good idea to include "affect" and "effect", as those two words are frequently confused with each other.


----------



## audrey729

Wait... what's the difference between effect and affect? I've seen so many things on it, but I just don't GET IT!!!


----------



## Negrek

"Effect" is usually a noun. Every cause has _an effect_. One effect of global warming would be an increase in sea levels. Increased cancer rates could be an effect of pollution.

"Affect" is usually a verb. One thing _affects_ another thing: the weather might affect a person's mood, for example, or a glitch might negatively affect a reviewer's opinion of a video game.


----------

